Opening a door to hedge his political bets, Sen. Rand Paul has asked the leader of the Kentucky Senate for legislation to ensure that Mr. Paul can run both for the White House and for re-election to the U.S. Senate in 2016, The Washington Times has learned.

Yes, I am working on clarifying an ambiguous state law that Rand Paul believes is unconstitutional if it is interpreted to bar running for re-election to the Senate and for president at the same time, Kentucky Senate Majority Leader Damon Thayer told The Times on Monday.

The purpose of the bill will be to make clear that Rand Paul or anyone in a similar situation in Kentucky can run for both offices in the same year, Mr. Thayer explained. If things go Mr. Pauls way, he could win the GOP presidential nomination, then run in the fall 2016 general election for the presidency and to retain his U.S. Senate seat. If he wins the presidency and the Senate re-election bid, he would relinquish his Senate seat.

If he loses the presidential election but wins the Senate re-election race, he would become a second-term U.S. senator from Kentucky.

Since winning his election in 2010, Mr. Paul has argued for creating term limits so members of Congress could serve a maximum of 12 years in each chamber.

Mr. Paul and his office did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. But in a recent C-SPAN Newsmakers program, Mr. Paul said he and his team were looking at the possibility of running for the Senate and the White House simultaneously.

I’ve been wonder if we’re crazy for thinking 2014 will be anything other than a huge sweep for the Rats. The Rats and the media want it really bad so they’ll cheat to get it, and the Republican party is a disaster. If Cornyn loses, look for active GOP support for the Rat. Then what’s going to happen when Establishment guys win other primaries? I’m not voting for Pat Roberts. My guess is others won’t either. The same thing will happen all over the country. Boner, Cantor, Ryan, if these guys get tough Rat opponents I see them going down. I predict a Demonrat route.

16
posted on 03/04/2014 8:51:35 AM PST
by demshateGod
(The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)

To all you Freepers thinking about voting for Paul in the primary. If he wins the nomination, I wont vote for him. Two reasons: Chuck Hagel and John Kerry.

I am not a Paul supporter, I prefer Ted Cruz but this logic is what gave us Obama's second term. As bad as Romney was, (and he was awful) he was a million times better than this communist agitator who hates America and is destroying the Constitution every day.

Even while this "Ukraine Crisis" is occurring Obama's EPA is pushing more crap behind Congress, Holder is attacking the 2nd Amendment without Congress.

I hate Amnesty pushers just as much as any other FReeper, I DESPISE RINOS, but I don't think one person on this forum with a brain could state this country would be better with either McShame or Romney as opposed to Obama...

Many times in life you are stuck with picking the best of two losers, sadly America chose destruction, I pray that the GOP gets it together by 2016 and we elect solid Conservatives.

I am absolutely done voting for people like Rand Paul. It’s not just amnesty, it’s his complete lack of understanding about who Obama is. Cruz and Mike Lee understand. I would vote for them. Romney may have been better for the economy, in the short term, but we’d still be on a horrible path.

I know you’re not haranguing me, but others will. And they can do it all they want. They want my vote, nominate a conservative who understands what’s going on.

22
posted on 03/04/2014 9:35:07 AM PST
by demshateGod
(The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)

Yep, 12 years max. For example, if I, NCC-1701, were to run for political office, I would go in KNOWING that, should I win, the 12 year countdown clock would begin. I could run six times for a house seat or two times for the senate. Or any combination that maxes out at 12 years. After that time, I could NO LONGER run again. Not lay off for a cycle or two the run again. My time would be up. No more elections to those two offices. Is that clear enough?

27
posted on 03/04/2014 10:29:17 AM PST
by NCC-1701
(I am proud of what America USED TO BE.)

“Repeal the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution; then therell be no need to run for the Senate.”

Yes, we can trust state representatives not to send politicians to the Senate. God forbid that *voters* get to decide who to elect.

Without a 17th Amendment, Dewhurst would have been elected to the Senate from Texas in 2012 without breaking a sweat and Ted Cruz would be trying to get elected Attorney General of Texas right now.

And remember how the GOP won a net 6 Senate seats in 2010, including electing several Tea Party favorites? That would have never happened without a 17th Amendment:

Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin? No way that the then-Democrat legislature would have elected him or any Republican over their precious ultraliberal Russ Feingold.

Senator Mike Lee from Utah? Sorry, Bob Bennett would have been reelected in a landslide without a 17th Amendment.

Senator Marco Rubio from Florida? Nope, liberal Governor Charlie Crist (who has since officially become a Democrat) would have been elected in a walk.

Senator Toomey from Pennsylvania? Inconceivable, since the PA Legislature would have elected either a Democrat or a RINO.

Republican Senators Burr, Portman, Ayotte, Boozman and Grassley being elected in NC, OH, NH, AR and IA, respectively? Sorry, the Democrat legislatures would have elected Democrats in all five states.

And remember how Senate President Harry Reid was strongly challenged in the general election (we would have beaten him, too, had Sharron Angle not been such an idiot)? Well, not only would Reid have coasted to reelection (Democrat majorities in both houses of the NV legislature would have guaranteed it), but on election night he would have celebrated how the Democrats expanded their majority in the U.S. Senate.

So my reaction to proposals to repeal the 17th Amendment and permit state legislatures to elect U.S. Senators is the following: over my dead body.

I am to the point I don’t care anymore really. I just goads me there are always in election/re-election mode. Maybe we should have laws they can only campaign 6 weeks prior to a primary and 3 months before a general.

Because allowing legislation to be approved by a single house is far more dangerous to liberty than requiring that it pass two separate houses (Washington’s admonition to Jefferson still holds true today).

And because in the U.S. Senate (i) members are elected statewide (so politicians can’t gerrymander to gain advantage) and (ii) each state has equal suffrage, so California can’t overpower the rest of the states as its population increases.

Having state legislatures elect Senators is not what made the Senate necessary or special at the Founding. Perhaps if state legislators were true representatives of thinking voters it would be acceptable for them to elect U.S. Senators, but that clearly is not the case nowadays. After you fix state legislators so that they act as representatives and not as politicians, come back to me with the proposal to have them elect U.S. Senators, and I promise that I would consider it.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.